Dr. Hardayal Chauhan, Shimla V. ITO, Shimla

ITA 129/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90088 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTASL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 129/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 DR. HARDAYAL CHAUHAN, VS. THE ITO, WARD-1, SHIMLA SHIMLA PAN NO. AASPC5916F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTASL DATE OF HEARING : 13.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.04.2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.05.2009 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), SHIMLA. 2. INITIALLY, THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23 .3.2010 BUT WAS ADJOURNED TO 22.4.2010 AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, ON MANY OCCASIONS THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT TIME AND AGAIN IT WAS ADJOURNED EITHER AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL OF T HE ASSESSEE OR FOR THE REASON THAT BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON THAT DAY. LATER ON, THE CASE WAX FIXED FOR HEARING ON 13.04.2015. HOWEVER, ON TODAY I.E. 13.04 .2015, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROS ECUTE THE MATTER. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON TH EIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEP ING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA L TD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NO T ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-4 78) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BU T EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.04.2015 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 13 TH APRIL, 2015 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR